Re: tlhIngan Hol chu' jIH

[DTrimboli@aol.com]

qaSDI' 96-08-08 02:22:20 EDT, jatlh Qob:

> ~mark, don't forget the new little trick Okrand threw in the {Qo'noS} S27
>  card:
>  
>  {roD 'oHvaD juHqo' ponglu' neH}
>  
>  Leaving aside the extraneous {roD} and {neH}, we get {'oHvaD juHqo'
ponglu'}.
>  It seems reasonable that {jIHvaD *Qob* ponglu'} is a legit construction.
 (I
>  don't necessarily *like* it as much as {*Qob* 'oH pongwIj'e'}, but there
it
>  is.

You had me going for a second!  I don't think this works.  If the sentence
were ~{'oHvaD *Qo'noS* ponglu'}, then I could believe it.  Apparently, the
object of {pong} must be the thing which is being named, not the name itself.

SuStel
Stardate 96604.7